Interview scorecard template

Lead Generation Virtual Assistant interview scorecard

Evaluate Lead Generation Virtual Assistant candidates across 4 weighted areas: track record, method and qualification, relationships and trust, and drive and resilience. Track record leads at 35%, so check volume and quality numbers they personally owned: verified contacts built per week, list bounce rate under 3 percent, reply rates on sequences, meetings. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
sales business developmentapollo iocold emailcrm hygieneprospecting
TL;DR
For track record, look for evidence the candidate quotes concrete figures such as 400 verified leads weekly at 1.5 percent bounce, and names the clients or campaigns behind them. For method and qualification, look for evidence the candidate describes a repeatable sourcing and verification workflow with named tools, and explains which titles or firmographic signals they exclude and why. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Track record

35% weight

Check volume and quality numbers they personally owned: verified contacts built per week, list bounce rate under 3 percent, reply rates on sequences, meetings booked for their account executives.

Evidence to listen for

  • Gives numbers: quota, attainment, deal size, client roster
  • Explains the market and buyer they sold to, not just the product
  • Distinguishes what they closed from what the team closed
  • Can describe a deal they lost and why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No numbers; cannot describe what they actually sold or to whom.

2
Needs Improvement

Vague attainment; credit for team results is unclear.

3
Satisfactory

Real record with some numbers; attribution occasionally fuzzy.

4
Very Good

Clear numbers and ownership, including honest losses.

5
Excellent

Quotes concrete figures such as 400 verified leads weekly at 1.5 percent bounce, and names the clients or campaigns behind them.

02
Evaluation factor

Method and qualification

25% weight

Probe how they define an ICP and build a list: LinkedIn Sales Navigator filters, Apollo or ZoomInfo exports, Clay enrichment, NeverBounce or Hunter verification, dedupe rules before CRM upload.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has a repeatable approach to qualifying and progressing deals
  • Can walk a real deal from first contact to close
  • Handles objections with questions rather than scripts
  • Knows when to disqualify

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No method; pitches at everyone and hopes.

2
Needs Improvement

Weak qualification; deals stall with no diagnosis.

3
Satisfactory

Workable method; inconsistent on complex or long cycles.

4
Very Good

Clear repeatable method; disqualifies early and deliberately.

5
Excellent

Describes a repeatable sourcing and verification workflow with named tools, and explains which titles or firmographic signals they exclude and why.

03
Evaluation factor

Relationships and trust

25% weight

Assess how they work with the sales team and handle client data: handover notes, HubSpot or Pipedrive field hygiene, GDPR or CAN-SPAM limits, response to bad-lead complaints.

Evidence to listen for

  • Has clients or talent who came back or referred them
  • Manages a difficult conversation without damaging the relationship
  • Represents the client's interest, not only the commission
  • Builds rapport across seniority levels

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Transactional; burns relationships for a close.

2
Needs Improvement

Builds rapport but does not sustain relationships.

3
Satisfactory

Solid relationships; less tested in conflict.

4
Very Good

Repeat business and referrals; handles conflict without damage.

5
Excellent

Shows evidence of long client retainers, clean CRM handovers, and taking correction on lead quality without dropping output.

04
Evaluation factor

Drive and resilience

15% weight

Look for stamina on repetitive research shifts across time zones: daily quota tracking, what they did when a data source or email domain got blocked or reputation dropped.

Evidence to listen for

  • Handles rejection and a bad quarter without unravelling
  • Self-directed on pipeline rather than waiting for leads
  • Coachable on feedback
  • Honest in how they represent the product and themselves

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Gives up easily; blames leads, product, or market.

2
Needs Improvement

Motivation depends on momentum; resistant to coaching.

3
Satisfactory

Steady; recovers from setbacks with support.

4
Very Good

Self-motivated, coachable, and steady through bad stretches.

5
Excellent

Cites specific recovery moves (domain warmup, switching data providers, rewriting subject lines) and consistent daily output over many months.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Lead Generation Virtual Assistant

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you give examples of results you achieved in previous lead generation roles?

  2. 02

    What is your experience with lead generation?

  3. 03

    Can you describe a time when you successfully generated leads for a company?

  4. 04

    Can you explain your process for qualifying leads?

  5. 05

    How do you ensure the quality of the leads you generate?

See the complete Lead Generation Virtual Assistant question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards